• Yes, so called "assault weapons" should be banned

  • No, so called "assault weapons" should NOT be banned

38% 8 votes
62% 13 votes
  • No. Assault weapons are the least of your problems. I fear he pistol more than the assault rifle.

  • I agree with Cooldudebro. A smaller weapon is a more easily concealed weapon and, although requires more skill, is just as deadly in the right hands. Besides ... 'Murika, freedom, bear arms!

    Posted by: Owlz
  • "assault weapons" should not be banned. People who say they should be are probably liberal fagtards that support Obummer and everything he does.

  • To Charlie: (Imitating Dr. Lightman from Lie to Me) : Ah, that's a lie. We need it to protect us from our own government. We have every right to defend ourselves. We need pistols to protect us from robbers and, if you're a woman, rapists: we need rifles and shotguns to protect us from burglers; and we need Assault Rifles (M-16s, AR-15s, etc.) to protect us from our own "benevolent" government. I think fully automatic guns should be legal to protect us from the federal government.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
USN276 says2014-04-08T16:36:47.6729620-05:00
Leave a comment when you vote please.
USN276 says2014-04-08T17:04:39.8632811-05:00
Care to have a debate on this Charliecdubs?
stanleymilgram1959 says2014-04-08T18:36:04.5308390-05:00
Yes. More coping skills, logic, and morality will make the need for force and weaponry seem more and more insignificant and assuage fear and paranoia squawked on the tube.
USN276 says2014-04-08T19:05:04.8935951-05:00
So before i go on, can you tell me if you just support an 'assault weapons" ban, or a ban on guns in general that way I know how to tackle this?
violetviolin says2014-04-08T19:10:49.9762997-05:00
I have personal experience with what the freedom to own assault weapons can do, and it is not pretty. I know that a lot of harm could be stopped if they were banned.
USN276 says2014-04-08T20:30:41.5269981-05:00
If your argument held any water @violetvilin, why is it that "assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT. AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. They are NOT assault rifles. (FYI, AR stands for Armalite rifle) Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers? So explain to me, with those facts, why should "assault weapons" be banned?
giraffelover says2014-04-10T12:16:04.6340991-05:00
Here's something else to think about: Prohibition didn't keep people from drinking, so how effective will an Assault Rifle ban be?
imawesomedude says2014-04-12T02:30:00.7830878-05:00
They definitely should be banned. Imagine all the innocent people killed if assault rifles land in the wrong hands e.g. psycho killers
USN276 says2014-04-12T07:07:43.0073900-05:00
At imawesomedude, read my comment which is two up

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.